8
edits
Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→My edit: Enlarging on why the comment is bigoted nonsense.
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
(→My edit: Enlarging on why the comment is bigoted nonsense.) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::At the end of the day WikiIndex is here not only to list and catalogue other wikis, but also to provide a balanced and unbiased opinion on any wikis - be that favourable or otherwise. Providing any opinion here on WikiIndex ''is'' neutral - then it should be allowed to stand, rather than being censored. Of course, any commentary or opinion here on WikiIndex which fails to be neutral, and shows an unreasonable bias can rightfully be challenged and deleted. | ::At the end of the day WikiIndex is here not only to list and catalogue other wikis, but also to provide a balanced and unbiased opinion on any wikis - be that favourable or otherwise. Providing any opinion here on WikiIndex ''is'' neutral - then it should be allowed to stand, rather than being censored. Of course, any commentary or opinion here on WikiIndex which fails to be neutral, and shows an unreasonable bias can rightfully be challenged and deleted. | ||
::I hope you can understand and accept my reasoning. Wishing you peace and the very best regards. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) | ::I hope you can understand and accept my reasoning. Wishing you peace and the very best regards. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Sorry, Sean, but I can't accept your reasoning, although I appreciate your attempt to explain yourself. I concede that many articles don't have citations, but ''many'' others, including many of the more substantial ones, ''do'' have citations, and ones that are independently verifiable. Further, the comment that "many articles do not include appropriate citations, references or footnotes..." is clearly meant to be associated with the comment regarding a "YEC viewpoint", yet it is precisely those articles that have the most citations. | |||
:::Although I know that a single example isn't necessarily representative, [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution this article] has 91 references (more, actually, as some cite more than one source), and they are split about 50/50 from each side of the dispute in question. That's far more balanced than the likes of Wikipedia, and I would expect that many other articles have similar balance in their references. | |||
:::Your claim that "all articles ''do'' need to have independently verifiable citations/references/footnotes - from ''all'' viewpoints" is a case of applying standards to aSK that are not applied to other encyclopaedias. WikiIndex's article on [[Wikipedia]], for example, although noting a poor standard of citation, makes no criticism like the one you are making here. Yet Wikipedia, which, unlike aSK, claims that it aims to be neutral, most certainly does not have citations from all viewpoints; it overwhelmingly cites anti-creationists even on articles about creation, for example. | |||
:::I find it laughable that you would cite a parody site and the bigoted and vehemently anti-Christian RW as any sort of evidence against aSK. That's like questioning the integrity of the police on the basis of the opinions of criminals and lines from stand-up comedians. Hardly objective sources. If you feel that you have to cite RW and a parody site, it seems that you don't actually have a good case to make. (Although I can't see where Uncyclopedia mentions aSK.) | |||
:::I completely accept that WikiIndex should provide a balanced and unbiased opinion, but you also agree that opinion should be removed if this is not the case. That is all I did. I removed an opinion that was not balanced nor unbiased. It is biased and unbalanced because (a) it applies a questionable standard that is not applied consistently (about citations needing to be from "all" viewpoints), and (b) it makes a claim that may only true in a narrow technical sense of there being "many" stub-sized articles without citations, whilst not balancing that with the fact that most substantial articles have numerous citations. | |||
:::Finally, I hinted above that a claim of yours is questionable. Why do encyclopaedias need to have citations from "all" viewpoints? Surely this assumes that ''all'' viewpoints are equally valid, which, if true, means that my viewpoint that they are ''not'' all equally valid is just as valid as ''your'' apparent viewpoint that they are, which proves that your (apparent) viewpoint is incoherent. Or are you suggesting that, for some unexplained reason, citations should be provided from all viewpoints ''including crackpot ones''? I would suggest, rather, that citations should be provided from all ''credible'' viewpoints, which of course raises the question of which viewpoints are credible. But this is itself subject to one's worldview. Is it the place of WikiIndex to be passing judgement on which viewpoints are credible? I would suggest not, yet a criticism of a site for not including references from particular viewpoints is effectively doing just that. | |||
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] ([[User talk:Philip J. Rayment|talk]]) 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
==sortable list of articles==<!--keep this section at the BOTTOM of this talk page--> | ==sortable list of articles==<!--keep this section at the BOTTOM of this talk page--> | ||
{{table of articles}} | {{table of articles}} | ||